Enclosure

Table 1. Estimates Contained in P.L. 105-277 for Programs Normally Funded Under the Agriculture and Rural Development Appropriations Act (in millions of dollars) FY 1999 BA OL CBO ESTIMATE, EMERGENCY SPENDING................................................................. Scorekeeping Differences: Department of Agriculture: Risk Management Agency: Federal crop insurance fund: Purchase requirement............................................................................................................. OMB and CBO use different technical assumptions to calculate the effect of this provision. Commodity Credit Corporation: Mohair recourse loans.............................................. OMB and CBO use different technical assumptions to calculate the effect of this provision. Other Budget Authority Rounding and Technical Outlay Estimating Differences........ TOTAL DIFFERENCES........................................................................................... OMB ESTIMATE, EMERGENCY SPENDING 1/ ............................................................ 1/ A portion of these emergency funds were contingent upon a Presidential declaration of emergency. The President released the contingent emergency funds on October 23, 1998. CBO ESTIMATE, NON-DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING................................ Scorekeeping Differences: Department of Agriculture: Rural Utilities Service: Rural electrification and telephone loans, negative subsidies................................................................................................... OMB estimates that there are negative subsidies for this program, which charges fees and private market interest rates on its direct loans. CBO estimates a zero subsidy for this program. 5,893 5,695 -18 -14 -2 -2 1 ---------19 5,874 135 --------119 5,814 13,692 14,071 -3 -3 Page 1 Table 1. (cont’d) Estimates Contained in P.L. 105-277 for Programs Normally Funded Under the Agriculture and Rural Development Appropriations Act (in millions of dollars) FY 1999 BA Rural Business - Cooperative Service: Rural business and industry direct loans, negative subsidies.............................................................................. OMB estimates that there are negative subsidies for this program, which charges fees and private market interest rates on its direct loans. CBO estimates a zero subsidy for this program. Office of the Secretary.................................................................................................. The appropriation for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations includes a $2 million transfer to other USDA agencies, each of which would receive less than $500 thousand. OMB scores the bill on a post-transfer basis. CBO scores the bill on a pre-transfer basis. -2 -2 OL -7 -7 Risk Management Agency: Federal crop insurance corporation fund Prohibit 10 percent payment.................................................................................... Section 748 would prohibit payment of the 10 percent payment authorized by the recently enacted agriculture research bill. CBO and OMB had different baseline estimates and, therefore, score slightly different costs of this provision. Farm Service Agency: Commodity Credit Corporation fund: Computer purchases................................................................................................................ Section 756 would limit expenses for computer-related activities to $65 million, the same as the budget estimate. CBO’s estimate was $70 million, creating a $5 million savings. Natural Resources Conservation Service: Wetlands reserve program...................... Section 728 limits enrollment to 120,000 acres in FY 1999. OMB and CBO use different baseline estimates. Therefore, the savings are different. 2 --- 5 4 13 5 Page 2 Table 1. (cont’d) Estimates Contained in P.L. 105-277 for Programs Normally Funded Under the Agriculture and Rural Development Appropriations Act (in millions of dollars) FY 1999 BA Food and Nutrition Service: Food stamp program: Discretionary programs........................................................................................... Although the account is mandatory under the 1990 BEA, the bill funds several activities that are controllable by the appropriations process. These activities are either new to the account since the 1990 BEA was enacted or have been expanded above the baseline levels that preceded the 1990 BEA and are assumed in OMB’s mandatory baseline. OMB scores these activities as discretionary. CBO scores the entire account as mandatory. OL 9 9 Studies and evaluations............................................................................................ Bill language prohibits funding of studies and evaluations. CBO and OMB score the savings from the baseline, but the baselines are different. Food and Nutrition Service: State child nutrition programs......................................... Although the account is mandatory under the 1990 BEA, the bill funds several activities that are controllable by the appropriations process. These activities are either new to the account since the 1990 BEA was enacted or have been expanded above the baseline levels that preceded the 1990 BEA and are assumed in OMB’s mandatory baseline. OMB scores these activities as discretionary. CBO scores only the $10 million for Nutrition Education and Training as discretionary costs. Food and Nutrition Service: State child nutrition programs......................................... CBO calculated savings to the school lunch program by using their February baseline as updated by the national average minimum value of donated foods for the period July 1, 1998 through June 30, 1999 announced by the Food and Nutrition Service on July 16, 1998. OMB calculated savings by using their February baseline. Studies and evaluations............................................................................................ Bill language prohibits funding of studies and evaluations. CBO and OMB score the savings from the baseline, but the baselines are different. 6 4 8 7 16 11 -1 -2 Page 3 Table 1. (cont’d) Estimates Contained in P.L. 105-277 for Programs Normally Funded Under the Agriculture and Rural Development Appropriations Act (in millions of dollars) FY 1999 BA Technical Outlay Estimating Differences: Office of the Secretary: Prohibition on the use of Fund for Rural America.................. OMB assumes a first year spend-out rate of 55 percent and CBO assumes a first year spend-out rate of 11.7 percent, so the OMB estimate of the discretionary savings of this prohibition is $26 million higher than CBO. ---26 OL Food Safety and Inspection Service: Salaries and expenses..................................... OMB assumes a first year spend-out rate of 96.0 percent and CBO assumes a first year spend-out rate of 95.0 percent, resulting in $6 million more in the OMB estimates. However, CBO assumes $22 million more in outlays from prior year balances. Farm Service Agency: Emergency conservation program......................................... CBO assumes $45 million in outlays from prior year balances of appropriations for disaster recovery. OMB assumes that these appropriations will be outlayed in FY 1998. Natural Resources Conservation Service: Watershed and flood prevention operations.............................................................................................. CBO assumes $112 million in outlays from prior year balances of emergency supplemental appropriations. OMB assumes that these outlays will occur in FY 1998. Other Budget Authority Rounding and Technical Outlay Estimating Differences................................................................................................................. TOTAL DIFFERENCES............................................................................. OMB ESTIMATE, NON-DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING............................... --- -16 --- -45 --- -112 -1 --------45 13,737 43 ---------130 13,941 Page 4 Table 2. Estimates Contained in P.L. 105-277 for Programs Normally Funded Under the Commerce, Justice, State and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (in millions of dollars) FY 1999 BA OL CBO ESTIMATE, DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING.................................. Technical Outlay Estimating Differences................................................................. OMB ESTIMATE, DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING, INCLUDING PREVIOUSLY ENACTED REGULAR DISCRETIONARY SPENDING............................................................................................................. Adjustment to Exclude Second-Year Effect of Regular Discretionary Spending Enacted in P.L. 105-174, the FY 1998 Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions Act.............................................................................................. 386 --- 357 2 386 359 --- 1 OMB scoring of this bill included the second-year effect of regular discretionary spending provisions enacted in P.L. 105-174, the FY 1998 Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions Act. Scoring of P.L. 105-174 was transmitted to the Congress on 5/20/98. This adjustment is made to avoid double-counting for BEA scoring purposes. OMB ESTIMATE, DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING.................................. 386 360 CBO ESTIMATE, NON-DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING.................. Scorekeeping Differences: United States Information Agency: East West Center................................................................................................ Budget authority and outlay differences are due to rounding. Educational and Cultural Exchange Programs.................................................... Budget authority difference is due to rounding. OMB and CBO have different estimates of outlays from new authority (+$4 million) and outlays from prior-year balances (-$10 million). 27,252 26,672 -1 -1 1 -10 Page 5 Table 2. (cont’d) Estimates Contained in P.L. 105-277 for Programs Normally Funded Under the Commerce, Justice, State and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (in millions of dollars) FY 1999 BA Judicial Branch: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts: Salaries and expenses...................... Budget authority difference is due to rounding. OMB and CBO have different estimates of outlays from new authority (+$4 million) and outlays from prior-year balances (-$5 million). Department of Commerce: Patent and Trademark Office: Salaries and expenses....................................... Budget authority difference is due to the fact that OMB’s estimate of fee receipts is lower than CBO’s. As a result, CBO’s scoring of the rescission in the bill is from a lower level of spending authority in FY 1999, resulting in more negative budget authority. OMB and CBO have different estimates of outlays from new authority (-$141 million) and outlays from prior-year balances (+$129 million). Department of Health and Human Services: Health Resources and Services Administration: Vaccine injury compensation program Trust Fund............................................................................................. Budget authority and outlay differences are due to rounding. Department of Justice: Legal Activities and U.S. Marshals: United States Trustee System program..... OMB’s estimate of current year fees that, if collected, will be made available for expenditure in the budget year is $1 million higher than CBO’s. OMB and CBO have different estimates of outlays from new authority (+$19 million) and outlays from prior-year authority (-$20 million Effect of section 126............................................................................................ Section 126 of the Act directs the Department to make certain $20 million in reductions pursuant to a chart on Year 2000 funding provided to Congress. CBO reduced the Department total by $20 million; OMB made the reductions specified on the chart. Difference is due to rounding. -1 ---1 -1 65 -12 -1 -1 OL -1 -1 Page 6 Table 2. (cont’d) Estimates Contained in P.L. 105-277 for Programs Normally Funded Under the Commerce, Justice, State and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (in millions of dollars) FY 1999 BA Small Business Administration: Business loan program account.......................................................................... OMB estimates that $1 million of the $4 million in proceeds from the sale of stocks will be available to fund new loans, while CBO estimates that the full $4 million will be available. The difference is due to differing SBIC subsidy rates. Securities and Exchange Commission: Salaries and expenses........................................................................................ OMB’s estimate of current year fee receipts that, if collected, will be made available for expenditure in the budget year is $27 million higher than CBO’s. OMB and CBO also have different estimates of outlays from new authority (+$54 million) and outlays from prior-year authority (-$38 million). 27 16 -3 3 OL Technical Outlay Estimating Differences: Department of Commerce: Economic Development Administration: Economic development assistance pr OMB and CBO have different estimates of outlays from prior-year authority. --23 Judicial Branch: Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and other Judicial Services: Salaries and e OMB and CBO have different estimates of outlays from prior-year authority. Department of Justice: DEA: Salaries and expenses.............................................................................. OMB and CBO have different estimates of outlays from new authority (-$91 million) and outlays from prior-year authority (-$1 million). ---92 --24 Page 7 Table 2. (cont’d) Estimates Contained in P.L. 105-277 for Programs Normally Funded Under the Commerce, Justice, State and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (in millions of dollars) FY 1999 BA Federal Prison System: Buildings and facilities.................................................. OMB and CBO have different estimates of outlays from new authority (-$8 million) and outlays from prior-year authority (+$308 million). General Administration: Counter-terrorism fund.................................................. --69 --OL 300 CBO assumes that the funds provided for protection against chemical and biological weapons will be transferred to the Office of Justice programs, and will be spent out at a 22 percent rate. OMB maintains that the appropriations language, as it is drafted, does not imply a permissive transfer, and must be spent out at the counter-terrorism fund rate of 75 percent. FBI: Salaries and expenses................................................................................ ---284 OMB and CBO have different estimates of outlays from new authority (-$122 million) and outlays from prior-year authority (-$162 million). Office of Justice Programs: State and local law enforcement assistance.......... --162 OMB and CBO have different estimates of outlays from prior-year authority. Office of Justice Programs: Juvenile crime control and prevention programs... OMB and CBO have different estimates of outlays from new authority (+$29 million) and outlays from prior-year authority (+$34 million). Department of Transportation: Maritime Administration: Vessel operations revolving fund................................ OMB and CBO have different estimates of outlays from new authority (-$101 million) and outlays from prior-year authority (+$29 million). Other Budget Authority Rounding and Technical Outlay Estimating Differences............................................................................................... ---72 --63 -----------85 25 ---------211 TOTAL DIFFERENCES..................................................................................... Page 8 Table 2. (cont’d) Estimates Contained in P.L. 105-277 for Programs Normally Funded Under the Commerce, Justice, State and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (in millions of dollars) FY 1999 BA OMB ESTIMATE, NON-DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING, INCLUDING PREVIOUSLY ENACTED REGULAR DISCRETIONARY SPENDING........................................................................................................... Adjustment to Exclude Second-Year Effect of Regular Discretionary Spending Enacted in P.L. 105-174, the FY 1998 Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions Act.................................................................................................. OL 27,337 26,883 --- -1 OMB scoring of this bill included the second-year effect of regular discretionary spending provisions enacted in P.L. 105-174, the FY 1998 Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions Act. Scoring of P.L. 105-174 was transmitted to the Congress on 5/20/98. This adjustment is made to avoid double-counting for BEA scoring purposes. OMB ESTIMATE, NON-DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING...................... 27,337 26,882 CBO ESTIMATE, VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION................................................... Scorekeeping Differences: CBO Scorekeeping Rounding Plug, Crime......................................................... Technical Outlay Estimating Differences: Department of Justice: FBI: Salaries and expenses................................................................................ OMB and CBO have different estimates of outlays from new authority (+$21 million) and outlays from prior-year authority (-$49 million). 5,510 4,683 -1 --- --- -28 DEA: Salaries and expenses.............................................................................. OMB and CBO have different estimates of outlays from new authority (+$20 million) and outlays from prior-year authority (-$40 million). --- -20 Page 9 Table 2. (cont’d) Estimates Contained in P.L. 105-277 for Programs Normally Funded Under the Commerce, Justice, State and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (in millions of dollars) FY 1999 BA Immigration and Naturalization Service: Salaries and expenses OMB and CBO have different estimates of outlays from new authority (+$152 million) and outlays from prior-year authority (-$99 million). --OL 53 Miscellaneous outlay estimating differences....................................................... TOTAL DIFFERENCES................................................................................... OMB ESTIMATE, VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION................................................... -----------1 5,509 -4 --------1 4,684 Page 10 Table 3. Estimates Contained in P.L. 105-277 for Programs Normally Funded Under the District of Columbia Appropriations Act (in millions of dollars) FY 1999 BA OL CBO ESTIMATE, NON-DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING................ Technical Outlay Estimating Differences: 491 490 District of Columbia Offender Supervision Defender and Court Services Agency: Salaries and expenses............................................................................... CBO uses a first-year spendout rate of 95 percent; OMB uses a first-year spendout rate of 80 percent for this new account. Department of the Interior: National Park Service: Operation of the national park system................................................... CBO and OMB have different estimates of outlays from prior-year balances. Other: Environmental Study at the Lorton Correctional Complex.......................... CBO inadvertently did not score additional funding for an environmental study at the Lorton Correctional Complex which was included in the enrolled bill. TOTAL DIFFERENCES.......................................................................... -------4 --------7 4 4 ----- -9 -2 OMB ESTIMATE, NON-DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING................ 495 483 Page 11 Table 4. Estimates Contained in P.L. 105-277 for Programs Normally Funded Under the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act (in millions of dollars) FY 1999 BA OL CBO ESTIMATE, NON-DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING, EXCLUDING IMF FUNDING.................................................................................. Scorekeeping Differences: Multilateral Assistance: International organizations and programs............................................................. CBO estimates of BA are $102 million below OMB estimates. OMB shows $105 million made available to the United Nations Children’s Fund as a transfer from the Child Survival and Disease Programs account. Agency For International Development: Child survival and disease programs..................................................................... CBO estimates of BA are $105 million above OMB estimates. OMB shows $105 million made available to the United Nations Children’s Fund as a transfer to the International Organizations and Programs (IO&P) account, CBO does not. CBO estimates of outlays from new authority are $7 million above OMB estimates and CBO outlays prior are $37 million above OMB differences. Assistance for the New Independent States of the Former Soviet Union.............. CBO outlays new are $86 million above OMB estimates, while CBO outlays from prior year authority are $121 million above OMB estimates. CBO assumes no transfers to other accounts because there is no appropriations language in the bill for transfers. OMB scoring is based on the historical pattern of transfers in the account. CBO also assumes lower prior year outlays in FY 1998, resulting in higher estimates for outlays prior in 1999. Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC): OPIC program account.......................................................................................... CBO estimates of BA are $1 million above OMB estimates due to rounding differences. 13,365 12,686 105 95 -105 -30 --- -207 -1 --- Page 12 Table 4. (cont’d) Estimates Contained in P.L. 105-277 for Programs Normally Funded Under the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act (in millions of dollars) FY 1999 BA Technical Outlay Estimating Differences: Department of State: Migration and Refugee Assistance........................................................................ Due to spend-out rate differences, CBO outlays new are $78 million above OMB estimates, and CBO outlay prior are $82 million below OMB estimates. International Security Assistance: Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund............................................................... Due to spend-out rate differences, CBO outlays prior are $7 million below OMB estimates. Foreign military financing program........................................................................ Due to spend-out rate differences, CBO outlays prior are $29 million below OMB estimates. CBO estimates of outlays from new authority are $1 million below OMB estimates. Foreign military financing loan program account................................................... Due to spend-out rate differences, CBO outlays prior are $30 million above OMB estimates. CBO estimates of outlays from new authority are $1 million above OMB estimates. Multilateral Assistance: Debt restructuring.................................................................................................. Due to spend-out rate differences, CBO outlays new are $2 million below OMB estimates, and CBO outlays prior are $15 million below OMB estimates. --17 ---31 --30 --7 --4 OL Page 13 Table 4. (cont’d) Estimates Contained in P.L. 105-277 for Programs Normally Funded Under the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act (in millions of dollars) FY 1999 BA Agency for International Development: Sustainable development assistance program...................................................... Due to outlay rate differences, CBO estimates for outlays prior are $39 million above OMB estimates. Assistance for Eastern Europe and the Baltic States............................................ CBO outlays new are $8 million above OMB estimates, while CBO outlays from prior year authority are $91 million above OMB estimates. CBO assumes lower prior year outlays in FY 1998 than OMB, resulting in higher CBO estimates for outlays from prior year balances in FY 1999. International disaster assistance........................................................................... Due to spend-out rate differences, CBO outlays prior are $20 million above OMB estimates. Other Budget Authority and Technical Outlay Estimating Differences....................... TOTAL DIFFERENCES......................................................................................... OMB ESTIMATE, NON-DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING, EXCLUDING IMF FUNDING.................................................................................. 4 ---------3 174 ----------99 ---20 ---99 ---39 OL 13,368 12,587 CBO AND OMB ESTIMATES - IMF FUNDING: IMF: New Arrangements to Borrow (NAB)................................................................ IMF: Increase in the U.S. Quota................................................................................ OMB ESTIMATE, NON-DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING, INCLUDING IMF NAB AND U.S. QUOTA.............................................................. 3,361 14,500 ----- 31,229 12,587 Page 14 Table 5. Estimates Contained in P.L. 105-277 for Programs Normally Funded Under the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (in millions of dollars) FY 1999 BA CBO ESTIMATE, CONTINGENT EMERGENCY APPROPRIATIONS..................................... OMB ESTIMATE, CONTINGENT EMERGENCY APPROPRIATIONS..................................... 1/ OMB will estimate outlays when the contingent funds are released. CBO ESTIMATE, NON-DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING ¹ ...................................... Scorekeeping Differences: Department of Energy: Energy Programs: Naval petroleum and oil shale reserves.................................................. CBO assumes higher receipt estimates for this account than does OMB. Department of Interior: Royalties on Outer Continental Shelf lands.............................................. Sec. 130 of the bill places an 8 month moratorium on the issuance of Federal and Indian oil evaluation rules. CBO does not score a cost for this provision. Consistent with its baseline assumptions, OMB assumes a cost of $43 million. 43 43 -3 -1 OL 102 15 102 1/ 13,927 14,299 Page 15 Table 5. (cont’d) Estimates Contained in P.L. 105-277 for Programs Normally Funded Under the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (in millions of dollars) FY 1999 BA Technical Outlay Estimating Differences: Department of Agriculture: Forest Service: Wildland fire management...................................................................... CBO assumes the use of contingency funds appropriated in prior years before the use of new authority. Therefore, CBO estimates lower outlays from new authority ($265 million difference) and higher outlays from prior-year sources ($347 million difference) than does OMB. Department of the Interior: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Construction............................................................................................ CBO assumes $38 million more in outlays from prior-year balances than does OMB. National Park Service: Operation of the national park system.................................................... CBO estimates higher outlays from new authority ($40 million difference) and lower outlays from prior-year balances ($98 million difference) than does OMB. Bureau of Indian Affairs: Operation of Indian programs................................................................. CBO estimates lower outlays from new authority ($68 million difference) and higher outlays from prior-year balances ($47 million difference) than does OMB. Construction............................................................................................ CBO estimates lower outlays from prior-year balances and from new authority than does OMB. ---21 --21 --58 ---40 ---67 OL Page 16 Table 5. (cont’d) Estimates Contained in P.L. 105-277 for Programs Normally Funded Under the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (in millions of dollars) FY 1999 BA Departmental Management: Priority Federal land acquisitions and exchanges................................... CBO assumes $46 million more in outlays from prior-year balances than does OMB. Minerals Management Service................................................................. CBO estimates lower outlays from new authority ($20 million difference) and higher outlays from prior-year balances ($53 million difference) than does OMB. Other technical outlay estimating differences............................................. Budget Authority Rounding Difference....................................................... TOTAL DIFFERENCES........................................................................... OMB ESTIMATE, NON-DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING, ---4 -----36 -----13,963 48 --------38 -----14,261 ---33 ---46 OL Page 17 Table 6. Estimates Contained in P.L. 105-277 for Programs Normally Funded Under the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (in millions of dollars) FY 1999 BA CBO ESTIMATE, CONTINGENT EMERGENCY APPROPRIATIONS........................................................................................... OMB ESTIMATE, CONTINGENT EMERGENCY APPROPRIATIONS........................................................................................... 1/ OMB will estimate outlays when the contingent funds are released. CBO ESTIMATE, NON-DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING, EXCLUDING VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION.................................................. Scorekeeping Adjustments: Special Education.............................................................................................. The House and Senate Budget Committees have directed CBO to include in the bill scoring an outlay plug of $215 million for the Title I program. This adjustment lowers CBO’s estimates to be consistent with OMB’s. CBO ESTIMATE, NON-DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING, EXCLUDING VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION (Including Adjustment Listed Above)........ Scorekeeping Adjustments: Department of Education: America Reads Challenge................................................................................. OMB scores a transfer of funds from America Reads Challenge to Special Education. The FY 1998 Labor/HHS/Education bill provided for a transfer of an FY 1999 advance appropriation to Special Education if the America Reads Challenge was not authorized by July 1, 1999. CBO does not score this transfer. Special Education.............................................................................................. OMB scores a transfer of funds from America Reads Challenge to Special Education. The FY 1998 Labor/HHS/Education bill provided for a transfer of an FY 1999 advance appropriation to Special Education if the America Reads Challenge was not authorized by July 1, 1999. CBO does not score this transfer. Rehabilitative Services and Disability Research............................................... This account is mandatory under the Budget Enforcement Act (BEA). CBO scores the "Technology Related Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities" program as discretionary. CBO reclassified this program when it was reauthorized. CBO is treating this as a new discretionary program not classified as mandatory under the BEA. OMB continues to score this account as mandatory. -30 -29 210 11 -210 -10 83,131 82,489 ---215 83,131 82,704 OL 517 517 162 1/ Page 18 Table 6. (cont’d) Estimates Contained in P.L. 105-277 for Programs Normally Funded Under the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (in millions of dollars) FY 1999 BA Department of Health and Human Services: Refugee and Entrant Assistance....................................................................... OMB scores a reappropriation of $20 million in unexpended balances to this account. CBO assumes there are no funds available for reappropriation. Social Services Block Grant.............................................................................. OMB scores a rescission of $81 million to this account for a rescission of mandatory FY 1998 funds. The FY 1998 funding level was increased from the FY 1998 Labor/HHS/Education level in TEA-21. CBO did not score an increase to SSBG in TEA-21, and does not score the rescission to this account in the FY 1999 Act. General Departmental Management................................................................. CBO inadvertently scored $218 million for this account -- the amount cited in Report language; OMB scored $210 million, consistent with bill language. OMB and CBO differ in first-year outlay rate estimates and have small differences in estimates of prior year outlays. Department of Labor: Federal Unemployment Benefits Administration............................................... Division J of the act contains a nine month extension of the authorization for the mandatory NAFTA-Trade Adjustment Assistance program. The discretionary section of the act contains a full-year appropriation for this appropriated entitlement. CBO scored the full 12 months as discretionary ($44 million); OMB scored only three months as discretionary ($6 million). Social Security Administration: Supplemental Security Income.......................................................................... OMB scores funds enacted in excess of $7 million for the "Research and Demonstration" portion of the SSI account as discretionary because spending for this account is controllable through the appropriations process. CBO scores the entire "Research and Demonstration" portion as mandatory. 30 -39 -38 -31 -8 -78 -81 -263 20 10 OL Page 19 Table 6. (cont’d) Estimates Contained in P.L. 105-277 for Programs Normally Funded Under the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (in millions of dollars) FY 1999 BA Railroad Retirement Board: Federal Windfall Subsidy................................................................................... CBO does not score as discretionary an estimated $11 million in anticipated taxes on benefits from discretionary appropriations that are credited to this account pursuant to section 224(c)(1)(B) of P.L. 98-76. CBO scores this as mandatory. Technical Outlay Estimating Differences: Department of Education: Education for the Disadvantaged...................................................................... CBO scores first-year outlays of $1.4 billion to this account; OMB scores first-year outlays of $1.1 billion to this account. OMB and CBO also have small differences in prior-year outlay estimates. School Improvement Programs......................................................................... OMB and CBO have small differences in estimates of prior-year outlays. Student Financial Assistance............................................................................ CBO scores prior-year outlays of $7.5 billion to this account; OMB scores prior-year outlays of $7.0 billion to this account. OMB and CBO also assume different first-year outlay rates for this account. Office of Educational Research and Improvement........................................... CBO scores prior-year outlays of $290 million to this account; OMB scores prior-year outlays of $365 million. There are also small differences in the first-year outlay rate between CBO and OMB. --49 ---610 ---22 ---245 11 11 OL Page 20 Table 6. (cont’d) Estimates Contained in P.L. 105-277 for Programs Normally Funded Under the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (in millions of dollars) FY 1999 BA Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Disease Control.............................................................................. OMB and CBO have small differences in estimates of first-year outlays and in estimates of prior-year outlays. Department of Labor: Employment and Training Administration: Training and Employment Services................................................................... OMB and CBO differ in prior-year outlay estimates. OMB scores $4.1 billion in prior-year outlays to this account; CBO scores $4.2 billion in prior-year outlays to this account. OMB and CBO also differ in first-year outlay estimates. Welfare-to-Work Jobs....................................................................................... OMB and CBO differ in outlay estimates for this discretionary reduction to a mandatory account. Unemployment Trust Fund................................................................................ OMB and CBO assume different outlay estimates on the spending of Year 2000 computer conversion. OMB and CBO also have differences in estimates of prior-year outlays. Budget Authority Rounding and Miscellaneous Technical Outlay Estimating Differences........................................................................................................ TOTAL ADJUSTMENTS....................................................................................... --63 --57 ---180 ---33 OL -3 ------------99 -298 ------------1,637 Page 21 Table 6. (cont’d) Estimates Contained in P.L. 105-277 for Programs Normally Funded Under the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (in millions of dollars) FY 1999 BA OMB ESTIMATE, NON-DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING, INCLUDING PREVIOUSLY ENACTED REGULAR DISCRETIONARY SPENDING....................................................................................................... Adjustment to Exclude Second-Year Effect of Regular Discretionary Spending Enacted in P.L. 105-174, the FY 1998 Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions Act............................................................................................ OMB scoring of this bill included the second-year effect of regular discretionary spending provisions enacted in P.L. 105-174, the FY 1998 Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions Act. Scoring of P.L. 105-174 was transmitted to the Congress on 5/20/98. This adjustment is made to avoid double-counting for BEA scoring purposes. OMB ESTIMATE, NON-DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING................ 83,032 80,847 OL 83,032 80,852 --- -5 CBO ESTIMATE, VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION SPENDING................................................... Technical outlay estimating differences................................................................. OMB ESTIMATE, VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION SPENDING ................................................. 156 --- 139 -1 156 138 Page 22 Table 7. Estimates Contained in P.L. 105-277 for Programs Normally Funded Under the Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (in millions of dollars) FY 1999 BA CBO ESTIMATE, DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING................................................. OMB ESTIMATE, DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING................................................. OL 300 300 300 300 CBO ESTIMATE, NON-DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING....................................... Scorekeeping Differences: Department of Transportation: Federal Aviation Administration: National Civil Aviation Review Commission Rescission (Sec. 337)..................................................................... CBO scores a $1 million rescission for this account. OMB scores zero consistent with OMB’s assumption that these funds are not available to be rescinded. Federal Transit Administration: Access to Jobs Program........................................................................ The bill provides $75 million for this program, $25 million above the level guaranteed in the TEA-21 legislation under the Transit guarantee. OMB scores the excess $25 million to non-defense discretionary. Technical Outlay Estimating Differences: Coast Guard: Acquisition, construction and improvements.......................................... Differences due to differences in prior year outlays (-$81 M) and new outlays (-$4 M). 11,620 13,400 1 --- 25 1 --- -85 Page 23 Table 7. (cont’d) Estimates Contained in P.L. 105-277 for Programs Normally Funded Under the Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (in millions of dollars) FY 1999 BA Federal Aviation Administration: Operations.............................................................................................. Differences due to differences in prior year outlays (-$64 M). Other Budget Authority and Technical Outlay Estimating Differences....... TOTAL DIFFERENCES.............................................................................. OMB ESTIMATE, NON-DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING, INCLUDING PREVIOUSLY ENACTED REGULAR DISCRETIONARY SPENDING..................................................................................................... Adjustment to Exclude Second-Year Effect of Regular Discretionary Spending Enacted in P.L. 105-174, the FY 1998 Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions Act.......................................................................................... OMB scoring of this bill included the second-year effect of regular discretionary spending provisions enacted in P.L. 105-174, the FY 1998 Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions Act. Scoring of P.L. 105-174 was transmitted to the Congress on 5/20/98. This adjustment is made to avoid double-counting for BEA scoring purposes. OMB ESTIMATE, NON-DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING.............. 11,641 13,293 -5 --------21 50 ---------98 ---64 OL ----------11,641 ----------13,302 --- -9 MEMORANDUM: Obligation Limitation, OMB Scoring ...................................................... Obligation Limitation, CBO Scoring ...................................................... 1,950 1,950 Page 24 Table 7. (cont’d) Estimates Contained in P.L. 105-277 for Programs Normally Funded Under the Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (in millions of dollars) FY 1999 BA OL CBO ESTIMATE, HIGHWAY CATEGORY SPENDING.......................................................... Technical Outlay Estimating Differences: --- 21,885 Federal-aid highways (including prior year outlays for Appalachian development highway system): Outlays from new authority........................................................... --Outlays from prior-year authority.................................................. --Other........................................................................................................... ----------TOTAL DIFFERENCES.............................................................................. ----------OMB ESTIMATE, HIGHWAY CATEGORY SPENDING.......................................................... --- 18 -445 4 ---------423 --------21,462 MEMORANDUM: Obligation Limitation, OMB Scoring ...................................................... Obligation Limitation, CBO Scoring ...................................................... 25,883 25,883 CBO ESTIMATE, MASS TRANSIT CATEGORY SPENDING................................................ Scorekeeping Differences: Federal Transit Administration: Access to Jobs Program........................................................................ The bill provides $75 million for this program, $25 million above the level guaranteed in the TEA-21 legislation to be funded under the Transit guarantee. OMB scores the excess $25 million to non-defense discretionary. 1,138 4,404 -25 -1 Page 25 Table 7. (cont’d) Estimates Contained in P.L. 105-277 for Programs Normally Funded Under the Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (in millions of dollars) FY 1999 BA Technical Outlay Estimating Differences: Federal Transit Administration: Transit planning and research ............................................................ Formula programs/Formula grants/Trust Fund share of expenses........ Major capital investments....................................................................... WMATA.................................................................................................. Other....................................................................................................... TOTAL DIFFERENCES.............................................................................. OMB ESTIMATE, MASS TRANSIT CATEGORY SPENDING................................................ -------------------25 --------1,113 -68 -61 -194 -42 -96 ---------462 --------3,942 OL MEMORANDUM: Obligation Limitation, OMB Scoring ...................................................... Obligation Limitation, CBO Scoring ...................................................... 4,252 4,252 Page 26 Table 8. Estimates Contained in P.L. 105-277 for Programs Normally Funded Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act (in millions of dollars) FY 1999 BA CBO ESTIMATE, NON-DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING......................................................... Technical Outlay Estimating Differences: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service: Processing, assistance, and management................................................................ CBO uses a first-year spendout rate of 88 percent while OMB uses a first-year spendout rate of 91 percent; this results in a difference of $103 million. OMB estimates higher outlays from prior year balances than does CBO; this results in a difference of $19 million. General Services Administration: Real Property Activities: Federal buildings fund................................................................................................. CBO estimates different outlays new (resulting in a $260 million difference) and different outlays from prior year balances (resulting in a difference of $205 million) than does OMB. --55 --122 OL 13,311 12,429 Federal Drug Control Programs: Federal Drug Control Programs: Special forfeiture fund................................................................................................. CBO uses a first-year spendout rate of 25 percent while OMB uses a first-year spendout rate of 60 percent; this results in a difference of $75 million. CBO estimates higher outlays from prior year balances than does OMB; this results in a difference of $41 million. Budget Authority Rounding Difference........................................................................... -1 ----34 Page 27 Table 8. (cont’d) Estimates Contained in P.L. 105-277 for Programs Normally Funded Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act (in millions of dollars) FY 1999 BA Other technical outlay estimating differences................................................................. TOTAL DIFFERENCES.............................................................................................. OMB ESTIMATE, NON-DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING, INCLUDING PREVIOUSLY ENACTED REGULAR DISCRETIONARY SPENDING.............................................................................................................. Adjustment to Exclude Second-Year Effect of Regular Discretionary Spending Enacted in P.L. 105-174, the FY 1998 Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions Act..................................................................................................... j g g purposes. OMB ESTIMATE, NON-DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING......................... ------------1 OL -7 ---------204 ---------13,310 ---------12,633 --- -4 13,310 12,629 CBO ESTIMATE, VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION SPENDING............................................................... Technical outlay estimating differences:........................................................................ OMB ESTIMATE, VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION SPENDING............................................................... 132 --- 129 -5 132 124 Page 28 Table 9. Estimates Contained in P.L. 105-277 for All Other Programs (in millions of dollars) FY 1999 BA OL CBO ESTIMATE, DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY.................................................. OMB ESTIMATE, DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY................................................. -65 -65 -49 -49 CBO ESTIMATE, NON-DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY......................................... Scorekeeping Differences: District of Columbia Federal Pension Provision.................................................. The Act provides for the sale of DC pension assets. CBO scored savings of $2,400 million for this provision; OMB scored savings of $2,414 million. Repeal of GSE Default Loss Protection Provision.............................................. -2,005 -2,021 -14 -14 -41 -41 The Act repeals a provision that was included in the FY 1999 VA/HUD appropriations bill, which would have relaxed restrictions on Freddie Mac’s ability to buy mortgage with low down payments. Both CBO and OMB projected a loss of revenue from increased use of mortgage interest deduction as a result of the provision contained in the VA/HUD bill. CBO scored the projected revenue loss as mandatory ($4 million in FY 1999 and a total of $215 million through FY 2003. OMB scored the entire loss ($41 million) as discretionary. Technical outlay estimating differences.............................................................. Total, Differences.......................................................................................... OMB ESTIMATE, NON-DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY........................................ MEMORANDUM: Mandatory Offsets Included Above: District of Columbia Federal Pension Provision: CBO Scoring............................................................................................... OMB Scoring.............................................................................................. Transportation Department: Federal Transit Administration: Rescission of Mandatory Contract Authority: CBO Scoring............................................................................................... OMB Scoring.............................................................................................. -2,400 -2,414 -2,400 -2,414 -----------55 -2,060 -10 ---------65 -2,086 -392 -392 ----- Page 29 Table 10. Estimates Contained in P.L. 105-277 for Emergency Appropriations (in millions of dollars) FY 1999 BA OL CBO ESTIMATE, REGULAR EMERGENCY APPROPRIATIONS.................. Scorekeeping Differences: Defense Department: Overseas contingency operations transfer fund................................................ OMB estimates that outlays associated with the $1.9 billion provided for Bosnia/Southwast Asia are higher ($1,450 million) than does CBO ($969 million). State Department: Diplomatic and consular affairs...................................................................... 3,907 1,644 --- 481 --- 238 OMB estimates that outlays associated with the $748 million provided for this account are higher ($397 million) than does CBO ($159 million). Other Technical Outlay Estimating Differences................................................ TOTAL DIFFERENCES.................................................................................. OMB ESTIMATE, REGULAR EMERGENCY APPROPRIATIONS.................. ------------3,907 -34 --------685 2,329 CBO ESTIMATE, CONTINGENT EMERGENCY APPROPRIATIONS............ Budget Authority Rounding Difference.............................................................. OMB ESTIMATE, CONTINGENT EMERGENCY APPROPRIATIONS........... 1 11,025 -2 11,023 5,704 --1/ OMB will estimate outlays when the contingent funds are released. Page 30 Table 11. ENACTED APPROPRIATIONS AS OF OCTOBER 21, 1998 (in millions of dollars) FY 1999 BA Outlays NON-DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY, EXCLUDING VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION SPENDING Non-Defense Discretionary, Excluding Violent Crime Reduction spending limits...................................................................................... Amount previously enacted...................................................................................... Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs Normally Funded under the Agriculture and Rural Development Appropriations Act............................................................................................ Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs Normally Funded under the Commerce, Justice, State and Related Agencies Appropriations Act........................................................................... Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs Normally Funded under the District of Columbia Appropriations Act............ Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs Normally Funded under the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act............. Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs Normally Funded under the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act............................................................................................ Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs Normally Funded under the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Act................................... 273,984 81,138 265,938 1, 3 91,330 2 13,737 13,941 27,337 26,882 495 483 31,229 12,587 13,963 14,261 83,032 80,847 Page 31 Table 11. (cont’d) ENACTED APPROPRIATIONS AS OF OCTOBER 21, 1998 (in millions of dollars) FY 1999 BA Outlays Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs Normally Funded under the Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act............................................................................................ Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs Normally Funded under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act............................................................................................ Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for All Other Programs, Excluding Mandatory Offsets....................................... Total enacted, Non-Defense Discretionary, Excluding Violent Crime Reduction spending, Excluding Mandatory Offsets.................................... Mandatory Offsets Included in P.L. 105-277......................................................... Total enacted, Non-Defense Discretionary, Excluding Violent Crime Reduction spending, Including Mandatory Offsets...................................... 11,641 13,293 13,310 12,629 746 328 276,628 -2,806 273,822 266,581 -2,414 264,167 Appropriations over/under (-) spending limits, EXCLUDING mandatory offsets.......................................... Appropriations over/under (-) spending limits, INCLUDING mandatory offsets........................................... 2,644 -162 643 -1,771 VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION SPENDING Violent Crime Reduction spending limits................................................................. Amount previously enacted...................................................................................... Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs Normally Funded under the Agriculture and Rural Development Appropriations Act............................................................................................ 5,800 --4,953 --1 --- --- Page 32 Table 11. (cont’d) ENACTED APPROPRIATIONS AS OF OCTOBER 21, 1998 (in millions of dollars) FY 1999 BA Outlays Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs Normally Funded under the Commerce, Justice, State and Related Agencies Appropriations Act........................................................................... Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs Normally Funded under the District of Columbia Appropriations Act............ Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs Normally Funded under the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act............. Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs Normally Funded under the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act............................................................................................ Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs Normally Funded under the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Act................................... Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs Normally Funded under the Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act............................................................................................ Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs Normally Funded under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act............................................................................................ Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for All Other Programs........................................................................................... Total enacted, Violent Crime Reduction spending................................................... 5,509 4,684 --- --- --- --- --- --- 156 138 --- --- 132 124 --5,797 --4,946 Appropriations over/under (-) spending limits.................................................................................................. -3 -7 Page 33 Table 11. (cont’d) ENACTED APPROPRIATIONS AS OF OCTOBER 21, 1998 (in millions of dollars) FY 1999 BA Outlays DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING Defense Discretionary spending limits..................................................................... Amount previously enacted...................................................................................... Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs Normally Funded under the Agriculture and Rural Development Appropriations Act............................................................................................ Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs Normally Funded under the Commerce, Justice, State and Related Agencies Appropriations Act........................................................................... Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs Normally Funded under the District of Columbia Appropriations Act............ Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs Normally Funded under the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act............. Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs Normally Funded under the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act............................................................................................ Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs Normally Funded under the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Act................................... Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs Normally Funded under the Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act............................................................................................ 271,570 270,943 267,210 265,303 1 2 --- --- 386 360 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 300 300 Page 34 Table 11. (cont’d) ENACTED APPROPRIATIONS AS OF OCTOBER 21, 1998 (in millions of dollars) FY 1999 BA Outlays Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs Normally Funded under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act............................................................................................ Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for All Other Programs........................................................................................... Total enacted, Defense Discretionary spending...................................................... --- --- -65 271,564 -49 265,914 Appropriations over/under (-) spending limits.................................................................................................. -6 -1,296 HIGHWAY CATEGORY SPENDING Highway Category spending limits........................................................................... Amount previously enacted...................................................................................... Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs Normally Funded under the Agriculture and Rural Development Appropriations Act............................................................................................ Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs Normally Funded under the Commerce, Justice, State and Related Agencies Appropriations Act........................................................................... Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs Normally Funded under the District of Columbia Appropriations Act............ ----21,977 92 1 2 --- --- --- --- --- --- Page 35 Table 11. (cont’d) ENACTED APPROPRIATIONS AS OF OCTOBER 21, 1998 (in millions of dollars) FY 1999 BA Outlays Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs Normally Funded under the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act............. Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs Normally Funded under the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act............................................................................................ Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs Normally Funded under the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Act................................... Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs Normally Funded under the Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act............................................................................................ Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs Normally Funded under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act............................................................................................ Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for All Other Programs........................................................................................... Total enacted, Highway Category spending............................................................ --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 21,462 --- --- ----- --21,554 Appropriations over/under (-) spending limits.................................................................................................. --- -423 Page 36 Table 11. (cont’d) ENACTED APPROPRIATIONS AS OF OCTOBER 21, 1998 (in millions of dollars) FY 1999 BA Outlays MASS TRANSIT CATEGORY SPENDING Mass Transit Category spending limits.................................................................... Amount previously enacted...................................................................................... Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs Normally Funded under the Agriculture and Rural Development Appropriations Act............................................................................................ Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs Normally Funded under the Commerce, Justice, State and Related Agencies Appropriations Act........................................................................... Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs Normally Funded under the District of Columbia Appropriations Act............ Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs Normally Funded under the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act............. Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs Normally Funded under the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act............................................................................................ Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs Normally Funded under the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Act................................... Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs Normally Funded under the Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act............................................................................................ ----4,401 --1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 3,942 Page 37 Table 11. (cont’d) ENACTED APPROPRIATIONS AS OF OCTOBER 21, 1998 (in millions of dollars) FY 1999 BA Outlays Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs Normally Funded under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act............................................................................................ Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for All Other Programs........................................................................................... Total enacted, Mass Transit Category spending..................................................... --- --- ----- --3,942 Appropriations over/under (-) spending limits.................................................................................................. NOTES --- -459 1 FY 1999 limits are the limits included in the Sequestration Update Report that was transmitted to the Congress on August 26, 1998. They include: enacted emergency appropriations, released contingent emergency appropriations, and other adjustments permitted under the Budget Enforcement Act (BEA) of 1997 as of the release of the August Sequestration Update Report. The spending limits will change to include additional adjustments permitted by the BEA when OMB submits its End-of-Session Update Report. (NOTE: Neither the scoring of the individual appropriations bills or the discretionary spending caps have been adjusted for emergency spending provided in P.L. 105-277.) 2 Includes the second-year effect of both emergency spending and regular discretionary spending enacted in P.L. 105-174, the FY 1998 Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions Act. The FY 1999 Non-defense Discretionary Cap has been adjusted upward by the following amounts for comparability purposes to reflect scoring of provisions that would result in upward cap adjustments: Foreign Operations - MDB Arrears.................................................................. Labor/HHS/Ed - Continuing Disability Reviews................................................ Labor/HHS/Ed - Adoption Incentive Payments................................................ Treasury/General Government - Earned Income Tax Compliance Initiative (EITC)................................................................ Commerce/Justice/State - Arrears................................................................... IMF: New Arrangements to Borrow (NAB)...................................................... IMF: Increase in the U.S. Quota...................................................................... Total......................................................................... 539 355 20 143 475 3,361 14,500 ------19,393 39 327 2 143 475 ----------986 3 Spending caps will be adjusted upward officially for BEA purposes in OMB’s End-of-Session Report for these adjustments and for emergency appropriations that have been provided and/or contingent appropriations that have been released since the August Update Report. Page 38 TABLE 12 OMB AND CBO SCORING OF PAYGO PROVISIONS IN OMNIBUS APPROPRIATIONS BILL (In millions of dollars) 1999 2000 OMB SCORING: Change in outlays: Medicare provisions........................................ Persian Gulf War Veterans payments............ TVA debt refinancing...................................... Other outlay provisions 1/............................. Subtotal, outlays.......................................... Change in receipts 2/: Tax and trade extensions................................ Revenue offsets: Liquidating dists. of RICs and REITs.......... Other revenue offsets................................. Special rule-cash options for qual. prizes....... Tax provisions relating to farmers.................. Other tax provisions........................................ Subtotal, paygo receipts.......................... OMB Net PAYGO impact 3/............................... Memorandum: Change in off-budget receipts......................... CBO SCORING: Change in outlays: Medicare provisions........................................ Persian Gulf War Veterans payments............ TVA debt refinancing...................................... Other outlay provisions 1/............................. Subtotal, outlays.......................................... Change in receipts 2/: Tax and trade extensions................................ Revenue offsets: Liquidating dists. of RICs and REITs.......... Other revenue offsets................................. Special rule-cash options for qual. prizes....... Tax provisions relating to farmers.................. Other tax provisions........................................ Subtotal, paygo receipts.......................... CBO Net PAYGO impact 3/............................... Memorandum: Change in off-budget receipts......................... 20 0 94 -45 69 -2,452 2,692 130 220 -170 -601 -181 250 510 0 144 -36 618 -1,376 3,185 160 1,459 -205 275 3,498 -2,880 2001 2002 2003 1999-03 480 14 156 -9 641 -433 2,732 165 160 -227 -250 2,147 -1,506 -110 159 158 88 295 -238 2,853 171 -241 -223 -909 1,413 -1,118 -190 329 138 53 330 -151 3,532 176 -238 -199 -396 2,724 -2,394 710 502 690 51 1,953 -4,650 14,994 802 1,360 -1,024 -1,881 9,601 -7,648 0 -2 -28 -36 -37 -103 150 0 16 -45 121 -1,771 2,425 27 170 -73 -579 201 -80 2,000 0 13 -24 1,989 -1,089 1,109 48 1,618 -66 235 1,869 120 -1,100 0 63 0 -1,037 -409 723 58 -99 -62 -240 14 -1,051 -50 10 113 29 102 -299 640 70 -348 -76 -781 -734 836 -200 30 101 29 -40 -196 672 75 -397 -72 -400 -240 200 800 40 306 -11 1,135 -3,764 5,569 278 944 -349 -1,765 1,110 25 -1 -5 -43 -46 -48 -143 1/ Includes Vaccine Injury compensation, Trade adjustment assistance, Sallie Mae, South Dakota land transfer, Canyon Ferry Reservoir, San Joaquin Land conveyance, new visa fees and spending. 2/ Receipts reductions are shown as negative. 3/ Additions to the surplus are shown as negative. Page 39